Research PapersNo Access

A MODEL OF DYNAMIC REWIRING AND KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE IN R&D NETWORKS

Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

CLAUDIO J. TESSONE

Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

URPP Social Networks, Department of Business Administration, Universität Zürich, Andreasstrasse 15, CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author

, and

FRANK SCHWEITZER

Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525916500041Cited by:14 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

This paper investigates the process of knowledge exchange in inter-firm Research and Development (R&D) alliances by means of an agent-based model. Extant research has pointed out that firms select alliance partners considering both network-related and network-unrelated features (e.g., social capital versus complementary knowledge stocks). In our agent-based model, firms are located in a metric knowledge space. The interaction rules incorporate an exploration phase and a knowledge transfer phase, during which firms search for a new partner and then evaluate whether they can establish an alliance to exchange their knowledge stocks. The model parameters determining the overall system properties are the rate at which alliances form and dissolve and the agents’ interaction radius. Next, we define a novel indicator of performance, based on the distance traveled by the firms in the knowledge space. Remarkably, we find that — depending on the alliance formation rate and the interaction radius — firms tend to cluster around one or more attractors in the knowledge space, whose position is an emergent property of the system. And, more importantly, we find that there exists an inverted U-shaped dependence of the network performance on both model parameters.

Keywords:

References

1. Ahuja, G., Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study, Adm. Sci. Q. 45 (2000) 425–455. Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. Ahuja, G., The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages, Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (2000) 317–343. Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. Axelrod, R., The dissemination of culture, J. Conflict Resolution 41 (1997) 203–226. Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. Baum, J., Cowan, R. and Jonard, N., Network-independent partner selection and the evolution of innovation networks, Manage. Sci. 56 (2010) 2094–2110. Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T. and Silverman, B. S., Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology, Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (2000) 267–294. Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D., Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1990) 128–152. Web of Science, Google Scholar
7. Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A., Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D, Econ. J. 99 (1989) 569–596. Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. Cowan, R., Jonard, N. and Zimmermann, J., Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks, Manage. Sci. 53 (2007) 1051–1067. Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. Das, T. and Teng, B., A resource-based theory of strategic alliances, J. Manage. 26 (2000) 31. Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F. and Weisbuch, G., Mixing beliefs among interacting agents, Adv. Complex Syst. 3 (2000) 87–98. Link, Google Scholar
11. DeGroot, M. H., Reaching a consensus, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69 (1974) 118–121. Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. Fagiolo, G. and Dosi, G., Exploitation, exploration and innovation in a model of endogenous growth with locally interacting agents, Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 14 (2003) 237–273. Google Scholar
13. Fischer, M. M. and Fröhlich, J., Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001). Google Scholar
14. Garas, A., Tomasello, M. V. and Schweitzer, F., Selection rules in alliance formation: Strategic decisions or abundance of choice? arXiv:1403.3298. Google Scholar
15. Gersbach, H. and Schmutzler, A., Endogenous spillovers and incentives to innovate, Econ. Theory 21 (2003) 59–79. Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. Gilbert, N., Agent-based social simulation: dealing with complexity, Technical Report, Center for Research on Social Simulation, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK (2004). Google Scholar
17. Gomes-Casseres, B., Hagedoorn, J. and Jaffe, A., Do alliances promote knowledge flows? J. Financ. Econ. 80 (2006) 5–33. Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. Grant, R. and Baden-Fuller, C., A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances, J. Manage. Stud. 41 (2004) 61–84. Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. Groeber, P., Schweitzer, F. and Press, K., How groups can foster consensus: The case of local cultures, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 12 (2009) 4. Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. Gulati, R., Sytch, M. and Tatarynowicz, A., The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure, Organ. Sci. 23 (2012) 449–471. Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. Hagedoorn, J., Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960, Res. Policy 31 (2002) 477–492. Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N. and Vonortas, N. S., Research partnerships, Res. Policy 29 (2000) 567–586. Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. Hanaki, N., Nakajima, R. and Ogura, Y., The dynamics of R&D network in the IT industry, Res. Policy 39 (2010) 386–399. Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. Hegselmann, R. and Krause, U., Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (2002). Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. König, M. D., Battiston, S., Napoletano, M. and Schweitzer, F., The efficiency and stability of R&D networks, Games Econ. Behav. 75 (2012) 694–713. Web of Science, Google Scholar
26. König, M. D. and Tessone, C. J., Network evolution based on centrality, Phys. Rev. E 84 (2011) 056108. Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. König, M. D., Tessone, C. J. and Zenou, Y., Nestedness in networks: A theoretical model and some applications, Theor. Econ. 9 (2014) 695–752. Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. Lane, P. J. and Lubatkin, M., Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning, Strat. Manag. J. 19 (1998) 461–477. Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. Liebeskind, J. P., Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm, Strat. Manag. J. 17 (1996) 93–109. Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. Mowery, D., Oxley, J. and Silverman, B., Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm, Res. Policy 27 (1998) 507–523. Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982). Google Scholar
32. Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W. W., Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community, Organ. Sci. 15 (2004) 5–21. Web of Science, Google Scholar
33. Powell, W., White, D., Koput, K. and Owen-Smith, J., Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences, Am. J. Sociol. 110 (2005) 1132–1205. Web of Science, Google Scholar
34. Pyka, A. and Fagiolo, G., Agent-based modelling: A methodology for neo-Schum-peterian economics, in Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007). Google Scholar
35. Rosenkopf, L. and Almeida, P., Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility, Manage. Sci. 49 (2003) 751–766. Web of Science, Google Scholar
36. Rosenkopf, L. and Schilling, M., Comparing alliance network structure across industries: Observations and explanations, Strat. Entrep. J. 1 (2007) 191–209. Web of Science, Google Scholar
37. Sampson, R. C., R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation, Acad. Manage. J. 50 (2007) 364–386. Web of Science, Google Scholar
38. Schweitzer, F. and Behera, L., Nonlinear voter models: The transition from invasion to coexistence, Eur. Phys. J. B-Condens. Matter Complex Syst. 67 (2009) 301–318. Web of Science, Google Scholar
39. Suzumura, K., Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in an oligopoly with spillovers, Am. Econ. Rev. 82 (1992) 1307–1320. Web of Science, Google Scholar
40. Tessone, C. J. and Zanette, D. H., Synchronised firing induced by network dynamics in excitable systems, Europhys. Lett. 99 (2012) 68006. Google Scholar
41. Tomasello, M. V., Napoletano, M., Garas, A. and Schweitzer, F., The rise and fall of R&D networks, arXiv:1304.3623. Google Scholar
42. Tomasello, M. V., Perra, N., Tessone, C. J., Karsai, M. and Schweitzer, F., The role of endogenous and exogenous mechanisms in the formation of R&D networks, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) 5679. Web of Science, Google Scholar
43. Tomasello, M. V., Tessone, C. J. and Schweitzer, F., The effect of R&D collaborations on firms’ technological positions, International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD) 2015 Proceedings (2015) 260–276. Google Scholar
44. Vazquez, F. and Zanette, D., Epidemics and chaotic synchronization in recombining monogamous populations, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 239 (2010) 1922–1928. Web of Science, Google Scholar
45. Winter, S. G., Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 5 (1984) 287–320. Web of Science, Google Scholar